Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > The Back Room - Come in for SUPPER > Modbox Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:08/06/2008 12:44 PMCopy HTML

 

In 1859 Charles Darwin published his book "The Origin of the Species" both scientists and Church leaders alike immediately attacked the claims he made in this book. The "Burden of Proof" for Darwin's theories was placed firmly at Darwin's feet. It was for Charles Darwin to establish that life evolved from a single cell organism, with evidence. The burden was not for other scientist or religious leaders to prove evolution false.

 

Now; almost 150 years later the "theory of Evolution" is still just that; "a theory" But an interesting thing has happened in the wider community. The "Burden of Proof" has now shifted from the Darwinist to prove their claims, to the Church and other scientist to disprove evolution and prove the existence of God or some other alternative.

 

As a result of this, shift in the "original" placement of burden. Large numbers of people now find themselves defending evolution from the standpoint that it is a basic axiom of biology, (Which it is not) rather than a theory.

 

The same type of Burden shift has occurred in relation to the receiving of the Holy Ghost and Speaking in Tongues. When the outpouring of the Holy Ghost first occurred on the day of Pentecost ALL of the 120 disciples began speaking in tongues. After observing this event others also received the Holy Ghost. It is reasonable to state that those observers had an expectation of the same outward manifestation.

•1.1                         A FEW ESTABLISHED FACTS

FACT:            This event was the FIRST occurrence of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sin.

FACT: Speaking in tongues was identified by the Apostles as the "promised" outpouring of the Holy Ghost, as promised by the prophet Joel.

FACT: This event was witnessed by people who had a reasonable knowledge and understanding of the meaning of the promised outpouring of the Holy Ghost.

FACT: hundreds, perhaps thousands of eyewitnesses, had just witnessed this event.

 

All of these resulted in the composite FACT that there was no "burden of proof" for the Apostles or any of the 120 to prove that those who receive the Holy Ghost will speak in tongues. For this had just been verified in front of numerous witnesses. This was also a fulfilment of Jesus' statement Mar 16:17 and these signs shall follow them that believe... They shall speak with new tongues.

 

 In recent years the vast majority of religious leaders believe and teach that the "burden of proof," lies with those who profess that ALL who receive the Holy Ghost WILL speak in tongues.  In reality the burden of proof" belongs to those who say, "YOU DON'T HAVE TO speak in tongues", to prove their case by showing where this is stated in scripture.

 

It is clear as a matter of law according to the rules of legal evidence that those observing this event on the Day of Pentecost, had a reasonable expectation of the same outward manifestation as the one they had just witnessed; which was clearly confirmed to them as the promised outpouring of the Holy Ghost, given by God and explained by Peter the Apostle.

 

Those who say that you do not need to speak in tongues are saying in effect.  "It is not conclusive enough according to God's word to warrant us to have this expectation".

 

To fully test this argument, one must go to the beginning of the Church and look at the FACTS. Remembering all the while the "burden of proof" lies with those who contend that speaking in tongues are not the outward manifestation associated with the baptism or being filled with the Holy Ghost.

•1.2                         WHAT IS: "Burden of Proof?"

An evidentiary burden of proof or burden of leading evidence is: an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs.
This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.


Why is this important?

Speaking in Tongues was first observed in 33AD on the Day of Pentecost.
The events, testimonies and eye witness accounts on that day, in Jerusalem; is all we have to establish on whom to place the "Burden of Proof" (as at
10am on the Day of Pentecost 33AD)

All subsequent testimonies and experiences are to be examined on the premise that when The FIRST members of the Church received the Holy Spirit, "they
ALL spoke in tongues"
Evidence is gathered and measured against this "premise" as they were established by the eye witness accounts beginning on that first day and onward.

 

In layman's terms: If anyone were asked at 12pm on that day "what happens when you receive the Holy Spirit?"
The answer is without question "you will speak in different languages"

WHEN; IF AT ALL DID THIS CHANGE?  "That is the Key Question"

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:08/06/2008 12:47 PMCopy HTML

First of all let’s start our examination of scripture with the directive from Jesus to the Apostles to go to Jerusalem where they would be given the promised gift of the Holy Ghost. We will spend a little time looking at that directive and the concept of remission of sin before getting into the burden of proof. We will then proceed to examine Acts one and two. We will progress through the rest of the accounts of the Holy Spirit being poured out and see whether the doctrine of tongues as evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism is supported in scripture.

 

 What you will see is that this was in fact the norm in the early church and over time the Church was infiltrated by wolves in sheep’s clothing with the express purpose of robbing people of a relationship with God and his son Jesus Christ.

 

1.1                         REMISSION OF SINS:

Speaking of the remission of sin, we read in Hebrews:

Heb 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (Note: The legalistic terms of reference)

Heb 9:18  Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Heb 9:19  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Heb 9:20  Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Heb 9:21  Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Heb 9:22  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

The Blood of Jesus is what gives us “remission” The question is this:

“Is it heresy to say that remission is contingent on more than just acknowledging that Jesus died for our sins”?

 

Let’s examine the evidence.

 

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,

Important: Understanding can only come as a gift of God. You can’t learn your way to heaven.

 

Luke 24:46  And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Luke 24:47  And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luke 24:48  And ye are witnesses of these things.

Luke 24:49  And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

 

Note: Here Jesus was saying that “Remission of Sins” was to “Begin at Jerusalem and this was to happen in the coming days. This is extremely important because many of these religious leaders point to any and every instance of someone receiving or being “filled with the Holy Ghost” whether Old or New Testament to substantiate their claim to disregard speaking in tongues as a legitimate evidence of salvation.

The TRUE GOSPEL is the gospel of Jesus Death, Burial and Resurrection in victory over death. Integral in the Gospel is the sanctifying Blood of Christ to purge the sinner of their sin so that they can stand before God pure and clean. The first instance of any man or woman being free from sin did not happen until the day of Pentecost. Jesus spoke of “Remission of Sins” several times but we did not receive “remission” until the confirmatory infilling of the Holy Ghost. That is why it is SO IMPORTANT.

 

Mat 26:26  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Mat 26:27  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Mat 26:28  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

The fact that Jesus died and shed his blood so that we could be sanctified is accepted by all Christianity.

The fact that the New Covenant, agreement or testament was not ratified until the recipient of the grace of God received the Holy Ghost is not accepted.

 We know from the Gospels that the Holy Spirit had not been given before Jesus had risen from the dead and had been glorified. This of course was the whole reason Jesus came. He was and is after all Jesus the Christ or Jesus the Anointer.

 We also know that John the Baptist preached baptism for the “Remission of Sins” saying that they (the people) should believe on he who was coming, that is on the Jesus the Christ. Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he (Christ Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

 The important word is “believe”. The question is; what is belief? Is it just acknowledging the existence of God, Is it verbalising belief in Christ? What does the Bible say? Lets see!

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:08/06/2008 12:48 PMCopy HTML

The term “Remission of sins appears 7 times in scripture. In these 7 references to remission of sins, the benefits of remission are contingent on Water, Blood or Spirit.

For example:

1) Water: Mar 1:4baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”.

 

2) Blood: Mat 26:28this is my blood…Shed for many for the remission of sins”.

 

3) Spirit:  Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

The religious leaders of the world freely quote Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness; that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.  

They openly tell their parishioners that belief only, is sufficient to receive the salvation, ignoring the very next verse and the confirmatory 3 witnesses.

Act 10:44  While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision, which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

 

Then answered Peter,

Act 10:47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Act 10:48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

 

Why do churches ignore this? The things that happened to the household of Cornelius were identical to those things that occurred with the120 on the Day of Pentecost.

They had received the Holy Ghost as the Apostles had at the beginning. Act 11:15  And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Act 11:16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Act 11:17  Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Act 11:18  When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

This story is my template or model of how to determine if and when those to whom I preach have received the Holy Spirit. If I simply said to people say a sinners prayer or verbalize your belief. I might just as well white out this portion of scripture.

We are called to give people “all the counsel of God”. Not just the parts that afford us the least resistance.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:08/06/2008 12:49 PMCopy HTML

As we can see there are three (3) Witnesses in the Bible that confirm or ratify our sanctification before God. We read in

1John 5:1  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1John 5:2  By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1John 5:3  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

1John 5:4  For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1John 5:5  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Again the religious leaders of the world freely quote these verses and stop short of the full gospel. If they read on they would be confronted with a challenge to their compromised version of the gospel. And once again they tell their parishioners that belief only; is sufficient, ignoring the next verses and the confirmatory 3 witnesses

 

1John 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

 

1John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1Jn 5:9  If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

 

What is meant by the repeated use of the word witness?

 

Definition: A witness as a matter of Law, is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching) and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event firsthand is known as an eye-witness. Encyclopedia Brittanica

 

The three (3) Witnesses bear Witness of salvation.

 

None of this is new. One needs only to look into the Old Testament to see the pattern repeated over and over and over again.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:08/06/2008 1:03 PMCopy HTML

That will do for now I will probably be banned from this site before most read these posts anyway.

Generally I find that most websites prefer "staged debates" where only those who support the point of view of the website creaters are allowed to freely speak. Those who offer a different point of view are controlled and censered off to the sidelines.

As far as the main point I am getting at is simple.

As at ~10 AM on the day of Pentacost those who had received the Holy Ghost had spoken in tongues.
Was there a reasonable expectation that at 11Am, 12PM or 6AM the next day would be any different?

If so where and when did this happen?

If there was an expectation that those on whom were poured out the holy ghost would do so in like manner to those in the previous hours on that day. Whould the expectation change in subsequent days, weeks, months, years, decades or centuries? If so Why?

Just wondering

Luke 7:35
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:09/06/2008 6:08 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Cult member: Luke's Word Matters to Him

This has already been covered ad-nauseum elsewhere on the forum and is fairly tedious to rake over again and again, especially with someone as fixed and duped as you are on the subject. This isn't your stomping ground for promoting Revivalist doctrine and you're already banned (and uninvited here as you well know) for nuisance trolling - this forum is for ex-members, ok? Feel free to check out recent discussions though, because I'd wager them to be very enlightening on the subject you've brought up here.

eg. http://revival.aimoo.com/Revival-Doctrines-we-USED-TO-B/2-Questions-Acts-2-8-12-1-1018628.html

Lukey - as at ~10 AM on the day of Pentacost those who had received the Holy Ghost had spoken in tongues. Was there a reasonable expectation that at 11Am, 12PM or 6AM the next day would be any different?"

It seems on that particular day there were many 'diffferences' and 'experiences' that were not typical to the next. Did you get the ability to speak in foreign languages? Did you hear a blast of wind? Did you see what looked liked fire? Is this a common experience of all who speak in tongues and are 'saved' in your church... or is it all shigida shigida? Again, be honest with yourself.

Acts 2At length, on the day of the Harvest Festival, they had all met in one place; 2  when suddenly there came from the sky a sound as of a strong rushing blast of wind. This filled the whole house where they were sitting; 3  and they saw tongues of what looked like fire distributing themselves over the assembly, and on the head of each person a tongue alighted. 4  They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in foreign languages according as the Spirit gave them words to utter.

And to quote some recent gem of Ian's:

I reckon you've been fooled into thinking that Paul's instruction to the Corinthian church was intended as a positive! Well, it wasn't. "Tongues" is nothing more than a very minor gift; it isn't a/the seal of God's Spirit, nor is it any sort of indication that a person is saved to begin with. Further, modern "Pentecostal tongues" aren't really evidence of anything; many are actually little more than a learned response, and the majority appear to be simple gibberish spoken over and over. Hardly the sort of thing one should be hinging one's eternity on!

Do you pray normally as much as (or perhaps even more than) you do in "tongues"? If not, why not? And why all the emphasis on, and concern with, "tongues" in any case? The apostle Paul didn't give the matter anywhere near the same degree of emphasis that you have shown thus far, or that Pentecostals give to the gift more generally. In fact, the impression that Paul presents is that an over-emphasis (perhaps fascination) with "tongues" is a sure sign of spiritual immaturity, and not the reverse!

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:09/06/2008 10:23 AMCopy HTML

Hi there Moth: I have been buy speaking on many other debate forums and I am curious why it is that you in paticular are afraid to debate the credibility of tongues be a critical part of salvation. I can understand that you and others have been offended in some way by members of the Revivalist churches (I do not know the detail so I cannot coment) but whether you were wronged or not still has no bearing on the substance of the doctrine.

I can see the logic in what you and Ian are saying and that fine, each to their own. If you are confident that your position is scripturally sound why then are you unwilling to have you position critically examined?

Reading through the backgrounds of many of the regulars on this site and taking their stories on face value I fully respect their decision to leave their respective fellowships and seek a more stable and spiritual place of fellowship.

This topic however is a matter of doctrine not of personality conflict.

Please rely with what you think.

God Bless
Luke7:35
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:09/06/2008 10:50 AMCopy HTML

Hi there Moth: I have been buy speaking on many other debate forums and I am curious why it is that you in paticular are afraid to debate the credibility of tongues be a critical part of salvation.

I'm an agnostic come universalist... I don't have the theological astuteness, knowledge, patience, time or desire to engage you and correct you on a subject that I'm completely bored with nowadays and care little about anymore... unless I thought it'd help you and had genuine desires to look outside of your own prior knowledge, but we both know neither of us will budge, therefore it'd be a waste of time. I'd only cut and paste gems from Ian's writing anyway. Why reinvent the wheel?

It's people like Ian who have a calling to debunking this particular false doctrine, and he does it extremely well (as do some other regulars here). They've already engaged you previously and I bet they would much prefer spend time and energy talking to people who are not of a fixed mind about it. Ian's on a break at the moment, and while I don't speak on his behalf, I remember him eye-rolling to me after writing basic layman responses to your questions and havign them promptly dismissed and obviously unread. That sort of pointless and fruitless debating can only go on for so long before it's tedious beyond measure.

This site is for individuals who are looking for answers while leaving your particular mindset and all you're interested in doing is selling a doctrine you passionately believe is correct, but more educated people (others online, not me) have studied scripture informatively to know your particular brand of doctrine as complete bunk and the articles on this site testify that quite clearly.

This is where you were at previously in case you got lost. I think any reader who has some nous and a willingness to work some exegesis will work out what's what. Yes, I asked to have you banned because, otherwise, when on earth would you have stopped your ridiculous ranting. You wouldn't have, because you're a zealot who proved that he couldn't and wouldn't take no for an answer.

http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Speaking-in-Tongues/Tongues-The-Rest-and-Isaiah-28-1-703525.html
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:09/06/2008 11:29 PMCopy HTML

L/GWM,

Your twist on "burden of proof" really is a nonsense. I dispute some of your alleged facts and an awful lot of your reasoning thus far. To be honest, I have no interest in debating this at length since it's already been done and your position has been scripturally demolished in articles published here. Nevertheless, as Moth challenged, let's use your hermeneutic.

As Moth pointed out, the events of Acts 2 interpreted according to your hermeneutic would indicate that any "outpouring of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sin" ought to be accompanied by:
1) a sound like a wind,
2) the appearance of fire
3) human languages not learned by the speaker, but comprehended by at least some of the audience

- not Revival-style "unknown tongues".

Forget for the moment the superstructure of 'soteriology' you're building, and deal with this challenge from the evidence you set as your foundation.

If your foundation is faulty, any superstructure is pretty pointless.

Seriously, if you don't meet this challenge, there's not much point even reading the rest of your argument (though I have so far).

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
MissIndependant Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:330
  • Posts:15
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/04/2008 1:04 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:10/06/2008 11:20 AMCopy HTML

I actually agree with Moth....Mr or Ms Guest, you are wasting your time on here with your doctrines...  People who have left the Rev centre are way beyond being re-converted to such narrow minded and shallow teachings.   Yes ppl have left the Rev centre due to various hurts and mistreatment etc.  However alot of the that hurt and mistreatment stems from the false crap and doctrinal teachings about our salvation.  If speaking in tongues was the only way of proving salvation or being 'spirit filled', then I would like to think there would be more demonstration of God's love and mercy etc than the judgement and condemnation so quickly dished out.  If speaking in tongues made us sin no more and be a true Christian as I was brain washed to believe, then why is there so much sin in that place!!!.  Because it's a load of crap.  Being a Christian has nothing to do with speaking in tongues.  I know many, many beautiful Christians who do not speak in tongues and have more fruits of the spirit or 'purity' in their lives than many of the ppl I grew up 'following and obeying' for twenty years. That ridiculous doctrine you are preaching only brings about guilt and failure and shame and hurt. 

I 'spoke in tongues' and became 'spirit filled' at the age of eleven and was then quickly baptised as the legalism enforced.  All this happened because I was forced to sit at the back of the hall for hours and hours over a couple of years chanting 'halleluja' over and over.  I had to get 'spirit filled'.  I didn't have a clue what actual salvation really was though or even have an understanding of Jesus or the basics of Christianty.  I was just a kid and did what I was told and believed what I was told to believe.  It was just all had known from a baby. 

When I was 'spirit filled' it wasn't even at a meeting.  It was in my own time on a bed and I know I experienced a powerful moment.  I believe God blessed my innocence and determination at that time.  However I believe that I actually 'got saved' when I was a young adult after I had left the Rev centre when I consciously chose to commit my life to Jesus because it was a heart choice and I knew what I wanted and the experience came from my heart.  It was when I knew first hand what His grace and mercy was after being through a whole lot of shitty times.   I have had many many powerful experiences from God since then and none of them had anything to do with 'speaking in tongues'.   The Holy Spirit can touch us in many ways and 'speaking in tongues' is only one of them and by no means is the key to our salvation. 

Anyway, self righteous, religious and prideful  'know it alls' really get up my goat so I had to say something!  Stop getting so caught up in stupid little details and you might start to see what's really going on there and then maybe you'll see the truth.  I don't care how many scriptures are quoted and sprouted to win an arguement.  As far as I'm concerned the way ppl are being treated is the reality.  As the old saying goes 'It's not what you say but what you do'.  I can't believe that even after reading ppl's stories on here and agreeing that it was bad, that you would still harp on about 'doctrinal issues'.  How could you not see the damage they are causing and not possibly start to question other areas like their doctrines?  How could they be so 'right' in one area and yet so 'wrong' and 'unscriptural' in so many others?  MMMM ????? doesn't add up to me....

Oh well no hard feelings... but I'm sure you have a thick skin as you'd have to be to survive in the Rev centre....
You've been banned... Leave us alone!  

Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:10/06/2008 1:26 PMCopy HTML

L/GWM,

FWIW I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were locked out before you could respond to my (and Moth's) querying of your proposed foundation in Acts 2. Innocent
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:11/06/2008 12:17 PMCopy HTML

Yep, locked out.

I'm sure he had a very convincing six page reply all set up and ready to go, with big coloured fonts no less, to explain why the initial salvation 'evidences' were unique and never repeated after the first day. It would have been interesting to see him wrangle scriptures around that one rather than the deathly silence that was the response by previous Revivalists in the forum recently, when asked the same question. And they themselves could have very easily have been Luke anyway, knowing his penchant for hiding under many guises.

I think the Question was a good reply to the Question asked by L7. I'm happy to be spared the nonsense... but curious nonetheless. Maybe he can email me his reply, if he can keep in succint?

I 'actually' agree with MissIndepenant. The 'Cult' isn't necessarily the organisation one is affiliated with, whether it be RF, RCI, GRC, CAI, ACA, or the UPI, it's the doctrine of separation that alienates these people, in various degrees, from their families and the wider world of Christendom around them. I've seen many people leave Revival but still be locked up and bound by the tangle of mishmashed scriptures it set up as their shaky foundation. That's where the heart of the cult is, in it's ability to control and isolate these souls via a doctrine that sets to confuse what should be a simple message.

It was on those foundations that many other doctrines were built, eg. Pyramidology, British Israelism, Numerics, Fellowship Rules and keeping Company regulations, and the list goes on. Actually, there isn't much listed in the Revival creed of beliefs that any well-versed (or backyard) theologian can guffaw at.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:11/06/2008 11:01 PMCopy HTML

M&R

Yep, locked out.

Of course, L7 did have a few hours where he could have presented a response in the ShoutBox ...

I've seen many people leave Revival but still be locked up and bound by the tangle of mishmashed scriptures it set up as their shaky foundation.

... Which is why I'm grateful for the posted articles from PleaseConsider.info - a useful resource, especially for those who wish to be Christian ...

(PS, being pedantic, I think your last few words were meant to be "can't guffaw at". Those double negatives get awkward!)
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:12/06/2008 12:24 AMCopy HTML

The 'Cult' isn't necessarily the organisation one is affiliated with, whether it be RF, RCI, GRC, CAI, ACA, or the  UPI, it's the doctrine of separation that alienates these people, in various degrees, from their families and the wider world of Christendom around them. I've seen many people leave Revival but still be locked up and bound by the tangle of mishmashed scriptures it set up as their shaky foundation. That's where the heart of the cult is, in it's ability to control and isolate these souls via a doctrine that sets to confuse what should be a simple message.

                ____________________________________________________________________________

Well said Moth! The sad fact is that so many people, even though they leave these groups, still carry with them this 'brainwashed' mentality. They just can't get past the doctrine that we had all been 'taught' and in fact all believed at one time. How is it so easy for some to 'see' and others to not see? Because they still believe in the doctrine which has come about by false interpretation as taught to them in these groups. So very sad!

As you say Moth, it is a simple salvation message - the gospel of  Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection and yet it seems to be not enough/insufficient for the revival groups. They have chosen to make it into a 'works-based'  rather than a 'grace-based' salvation message. If Jesus died just so we could speak in tongues, it all seems rather pointless - and yet He died so that we could have new abundant life by believing, trusting and following Him. 

While these groups hold on to their teachings/beliefs they remain under a dark cloud of oppression and will not 'see' Jesus or have a revelation of Him and His love for us. IF they choose to seek God and investigate scripture further they begin to realise that they don't have the answers at all. 

The God that the revival groups know is the God that they show - and it is a God of fear, judgement, control instead of a God of love, mercy, kindness, compassion who desires us to seek Him with all our hearts. The moment we decide to do that, He comes for us and we resume the intimate relationship that we had with Him before the fall.

I will be eternally grateful that I didn't remain in the organisation, even though I probably stayed longer than I should have. This was because of the fear and guilt that is put on a person if they consider leaving and going somewhere else. Week after week after week I listened to our pastors tell us that the 'big pentecostal' (and in fact ALL other) churches must be wrong cos they're so big/they drink alcohol/they compromise/they don't preach the truth/only WE preach the truth etc etc etc - and it was that fear that held me there.  I was afraid that if I went somewhere else I would 'compromise' - although I was in fact very, very lukewarm.  It was more of a social scene in the end for me and I had lost my desire to pray or to seek God.  VERY very different now!! I love my beautiful Lord with a passion that I never knew I had inside of me and will love and serve Him till the day I die.

Lukey, if you're reading this, please give some thought to what I am saying - open your mind and your heart to God and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He did to me, and to many others that I know that now have an awesome relationship with God that they never, ever had during their time at RF.

With love, Urchin

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:12/06/2008 1:36 AMCopy HTML

(I've seen many people leave Revival but still locked up and bound by the tangle of mishmashed scriptures it set up as their shakey foundation.  That's where the heart of the cult is, in it's ability to control and isolate these souls via a doctrine that set to confuse what should be a simple message.)
------------------------------------------------------

How true, Moth and Urch.  Even when people physically leave the Revival stronghold some are still controlled and held captive - such is the misguided power Revival wield.   I have seen many sad cases of people bruised, wounded and put out, or have left for some other reason, who many years later are still controlled by Revival doctrine, guilt and fear of other churches.

God Bless and let them see the Light of Christ.  (Lumen Christi)

Epi
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:28/06/2008 12:13 AMCopy HTML

Good morning, Luke.

You still don't 'get' it, do you? In spite of all the time that I (and others) invested into responding and rebutting your multiplied ramblings, you continue to promote the unscriptural nonsense you inherited from your days in Revivalism. Furthermore, you yet continue to proof-text Scripture ad infinitum, and then without any explanatory commentary whatsoever.

Truly this is very, very sad Undecided

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Demon_Hunter Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:02/12/2008 11:39 AM

Re:The Burden of Proof

Date Posted:02/12/2008 11:56 AMCopy HTML

Speaking in tougues should be a choice and it is wrong the way the cai force it onto people it for just u and God and should be personal and not forced 
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.